The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a US policy to encourage the formation of economic ties with countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, sounds generous on paper, writes Steve Ouma Akoth. But a closer look at the situation on the ground in Kenya raises questions about who will really benefit from AGOA, Akoth tells Pambazuka News.

Steve Ouma argues that for the promised social transformation in Kenya to take root, "political class and other parochial interests" have to give way to consensus and truth telling.

The jubilations that followed the announcement of the Grand Coalition cabinet on April, 13, 2008 were expected. In the lips of most Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) supporters the talk was “at least now we shall also share in the National cake” and perhaps not just as “passengers” in government but real actors. Evoking the classical argument of legal theorist Bruce Ackerman, some analysts have argued that Kenya has been in a constitutional moment since the outbreak of the post 2007 election violent protests. My reading is that most of these commentators have not made a full reading of Bruce’s argument- and if they have, then their interpretation of the text is a little off the mark. Bruce argues that constitutional democracy in the United States has evolved along two distinct tracks of lawmaking. One track is that of “normal politics,” the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government make decisions on behalf of citizens in the absence of high levels of citizen engagement. The second track is what he refers to as the “constitutional moments” These are times characterized by sustained citizen engagement and mobilization and demand for social transformation. This track is therefore one of “higher” lawmaking enterprises.

During these constitutional moments, the people themselves assert their supremacy, and demand sweeping changes in the structure of constitutional democracy. When American democracy has functioned on this second, “higher track” of lawmaking -- as when the constitution itself was framed, when the country emerged from its civil war and brought an end to slavery, and when the federal government dramatically expanded its intervention in the national economy during the New Deal of the 1930’s – governing institutions were fundamentally reshaped.

By all measure, the Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s and President Kibaki’s hand shake and the subsequent deal, legal and constitutional changes have not generated such heights. In the recent history though, when Kenya experienced constitutional moments was the case during the 2002 elections and at the National Constitutional Conference held at Bomas of Kenya (popularly referred to as the Bomas conference). Before the conference, Prof. Yash Pal Ghai’s Commission had gone round the country listening to the people. After many years of misrule and oppression Kenyans used the Ghai hearing sessions as moments of reviewing their past and defining the future. Through Ghai and his team they demanded a presidency that did not replicate a god; one who was not above the law or omniscient. As, Barth (2005), notes the Kenyan president is like a Greek god- pompous in benevolence, and lethal in malevolence. On the super-centralized government framework, Kenyans lamented that they work so hard deep in their villages, and generously give unto “Caesar” through exorbitant taxes, but have no say on how “Caesar” shares out the national cake. For this reason they demanded to be allowed to participate more prominently in the way they are governed, and the way their resources should be shared. One cannot side step these moments simply because there was no violence associated with them. These were constitutional moments.

After the 2002 National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) velvet revolution, the clarion call “yote yawezekana bila Moi”( all is possible without Moi), was all over the air and there was increased vigilance by the citizens. In assertion of their supremacy, citizens arrested police caught extorting bribe. Workers in the Export processing Zones took to the streets in March 2003, to claim better wages, collective bargain agreement and justice relation in production. And most important, there was pressure on the NARC administration to fast tract the constitutional reforms- which in their pre-elections pledge, they had promised to do in 100 days. When Bomas re-opened, the debate was robust and unstoppable. Kenyans wanted wide sweeping changes in the structure our constitutional democracy.

The struggle was so intense that it finally polarized the country at the referendum. While there were other issues on which the “NO” and “YES” side differed and put forward passionate arguments amidst propaganda and mudslinging (which are common in vote-wooing campaigns), the subject of the executive and devolution of power was the real water shade. Evidently, most Kenyans wanted and still want a less powerful executive. These were constitutional moments which simply lacked a midwife. It is the frustration and abortion of these moments that created the recipe to the Post December violence pushing t the Country to its death bed.

Kenyans therefore know what they want and have defined it rather well during the 2002 and 2003 “constitutional moments”. These moments have been frustrated by the political class and other parochial interests. It must be in realization of this fact that the president quipped while making his contribution in parliament on the National Accord and Reconciliation Bill 2008 that “even Orengo alone can now write the Constitution”.

With this clarification, what Kenya is going through now can best be described as a moment of liminality. The theorist, Victor Turner (1922-83), introduced this concept in his famous essay “Betwixt and between; the liminal Period in the Rites-de- passage”. His thesis was focused on rites of passage and more so initiation. Turner regarded rites of passage and in particular initiation ritual, as a process of transformation whereby a person moves from one defined state to another, with an intervening period of uncertainty and crisis. It is this state of crisis- liminal stage – that is the focus of the ritual, which seeks to control it and to impose the values of the society upon the wavering individual who for a short but critical period, is in a “gap”. In this “gap” between social status, neither the old nor the new rules apply and the individual is compelled by the society to reflect on her situation, her place in the society and indeed the existence of the society as such.

Going back to the 18th March parliamentary debate ,perhaps this state of Kenya’s liminality was best captured by the Hon. Minister for Justice and Constitutional affairs who in her contribution reminded Members of parliament that the amendments the National Accord and Reconciliation Bill sought to make to the Constitution “is temporary, pending the full review of the Constitution.” The Country is therefore between the new and the old legal order, between authoritarian presidency and another centre of power, between a presidential democracy and parliamentary democracy, between an open and a closed society. One must also recall that the National dialogue Committee is still in session and its Chief mediator, Mr Oluyemi Adeniji, was in the parliamentary gallery on 18th March. What the Committee has been doing is to assist Kenya to reflect on her situation, her place as a member of regional and international community and indeed her own national identity.

The liminal period is also the state of truth telling. Within Victor’s analysis of initiation, it is during their period that the individual is taken through the rigor of community secrets and is invited to understand the truth about the community. Kenya intend to start two truth telling process. One shall be under way soon and that is the Independent Review Committee (IREC) whose mandate is to probe the presidential election fiasco that plunged the country into crisis. The other shall be the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission. The common objective of the two parallel teams is to define the elusive truth. This shall be the most trying moment as truth is ultimately a matter of socially and historically conditioned agreement. This means that what the various parties may see as facts, may well depend on their vantage point of seeing the world.

It is only when this consensus is attained that the country shall move on towards the social transformation that we have been yearning for and create a new moral code and national physique. This new Kenya must be reflected in the new constitution whose time line has now been given as twelve months. Liminality is a creative and critical state of being, it is how best all Kenyan stride through it that shall determine our reintegration amongst ourselves and with the international citizenry.

*Steve Ouma is based at the Faculty of Arts, University of Western Cape, South Africa.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

A critical examination of the WSF highlights the imbalances between on the one hand the NGOs and CSO and on the other, the people's movements. The conclusion is that the former must now begin to listen to the latter in order for globalisation to occur from below and for the masses to speak to power.

The World Social Forum (WSF) has carved its space as an assembly of movement of movements. The latest forum was held in Nairobi between 20th and 25th January 2007.

This discussion paper is part of the broader project by the author aimed at examining the role and place of human rights discourse in shaping the global social justice and human rights movement within the context of the WSF. At the outset, the paper explores two items based on the author’s observations and experience at the forum.

First the paper reviews the extent to which the Nairobi session stimulated or accelerated the vertical and horizontal linkage(s) between the various movements. In so doing, it attempts to appraise the counter force by the citizenry against the onslaught of capital-led globalization. Second, the paper attempts to review the utility of the human rights discourse and language in shaping the character and principal issues around which these movements do organize. The analysis reveals that although the connectivity of the movements seems to have been realized, the Nairobi session failed to emerge focused as a counter force to the Davos-led and capital-centered globalization.

Ultimately, it is only by defining the contours and ethical values as seen and experienced by the poor and marginalized themselves that real globalization will be promoted from below and the WSF made a strong, relevant and viable force.

Introduction

The 7th session of the World Social Forum (WSF) was held in Nairobi from the 20th to 25th January 2007. The Forum demonstrated the coming of age of what started as a resistance session against economic-centered globalization. The first session of the WSF was held in Porto Allegre Brazil in 2001, as a response to the World Economic Forum (WEF) -an annual meeting of top business leaders, journalists, national political leaders (presidents, prime ministers and others), and selected intellectuals and renowned personalities- usually held in Davos, Switzerland.

The main aim of the Davos forum that was founded in 1971 is to define the trajectory and architecture for more capital-led globalization. The thinkers behind the WSF intended to counterweight or shape the agenda of the Davos economic moguls. This greatly explains why part of the success criteria for the WSF has always been in demonstrating that it is made of large, visible and devoted international community. No doubt one of the indicators has been the rapid growth in the number of participants who attend the WSF. It is reported that the first WSF in 2001 had a participation of about 12,000 people, while the one held in 2005 had an approximate participation of about 150,000.

The Character and Message

Despite a decision that was made in 2003 to halt the monopoly of Porte Allegre in hosting the forum, the WSF has maintained its initial character guided by its ‘Porto Allegre’ charter of principles as an open forum. Additionally, the WSF has witnessed diverse initiatives from social movements, non-governmental organizations, activists and people committed to a better world founded on justice and human dignity converge for some sort of carnivore of resistance, especially against imperial globalization.

Despite the dwindling number of participants at the Nairobi session (estimated at about 40,000 from the initially projected 150,000) the Nairobi assembly still provided the much required moment and opportunity to define another world. In almost all sessions, the agenda was clear: that the current of globalization must change. This is more so because it has produced and continues to support a system where too few share in its benefits. It is characterized with deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global economy, which are ethically unacceptable and politically and economically unsustainable.

Through the various informal sessions at the WSF 2007 in workshops, art, theatre, processions and mute courts, the various grassroots movements were able to complete the picture of the nature and intensity of the unjust global system. It worked in linking residents of slums with landless squatters, the indigenous and the minority with the disabled and the excluded and the various other networks of men and women in the resistance movement. From the Forum, it was further clear that this movement is becoming stronger and bigger than the NGOs and CSOs which may have played a role in facilitating some of the community-based movements and organizations in attending the forum. It is however a shame that some of the CSOs are unable to let go beyond the facilitation.

A key message that one could carry from the Forum is that the middle class-based CSOs need to let go the space for the social movements. The CSOs must allow the movements to radicalize and define their claims within their own space. Truly, a time has come when the CSOs and NGOs, both local and international, must agree to be led by people’s movements.

In any case, as it did emerge during the Nairobi session, the WSF has now become bigger than the organizers, and this is why I say the WSF has come of age. A case in point is when community groups at the WSF 2007 protested vehemently against the local organizing committee that was adulterating the environment of the WSF.

The community groups fought back against the exploitative price of drinking water, the domination of food supply by the middle-class hotels, the arrogance and some of the unethical practices allegedly conducted and perpetuated by the organizers, and so on. In fact the protest march to the offices of the organizers seemed to state that the participants in the WSF and its organizers were no longer comrades. While some chose to see this as being disrespectful, such efforts are commendable as it did demonstrate that globalization from below shall be about clarification of value from within the movement and connection of the grassroots resistance. Indeed, the poor and the marginalized people struggles must protect the egalitarian nature of the WSF and safeguard it.

Talking to Davos

But, perhaps, it would also be vital to expound on two of the glaring limitations about politicizing and focusing our message and the challenge of using the rights language. As has been stated in the background, the WSF emerged as a counter force to capital organizing under the WEF. Over the years, the WSF sessions were designed to delegitimize Davos and define the agenda of another world that is guided by the principles of individual and collective responsibility, and that requires economic development based on the respect for human rights. Ironically, it is unfortunate that in the multiplicity of activities, the Nairobi session ended completely unfocused and with no message or rallying point to respond to or mitigate the negative consequences and dimensions of globalization.

As one of the usual white-wash mechanisms, the theme for the Davos session of the WEF this year was “the shifting power equitation”. In their discussion, the over 2,400 participants were focusing on the threats of power concentration due to the emergence of China and Asia in general. This theme was, in my opinion, very well-curved for reaction by the WSF. Unfortunately very few of the participants in the Nairobi session at any time knew that the WEF was going on. This serves to give ammunition to those who think that the WSF is a simple anarchist and CSO empty talk.

For WSF to maintain its relevance and significance the en mass must be able to talk to power and organize the social capital to some visible influencing strength that can tilt power to the common citizens.

Human Rights and People’s Struggles

The second decision point is on a major lesson that I leant at the WSF 2007. Having expended most of the time at the Human Rights Dignity and Caucus tent, I did notice the major contradictions between the people’s angle of human rights and the angle to rights taken by the NGOs. It has already been noted that the design of the tent was within the conventional power of a heavy podium vs audience arrangement. This attests that there seem to have been no discussion on how our values would guide how we organize the tent; who speaks; what we eat; in what language and how we communicate, and so on.

Nevertheless perhaps the most salient was the interpretation of the struggles as presented and seen by the communities, and the way it was presented and viewed by the CSOs. First and foremost, the sessions were led by renowned CSOs, locally and globally, and in most occasions the approach was that of articulating rights issues from the point of universal human rights law and regime. Obsessed by these views of rights, which were significantly middle-class, a number of CSO representatives shocked the audience when they, on occasions, attempted to respond even to the opinions of the various communities in the struggle purportedly to put it within the international human rights context.

Testimonies from the communities and presentations on the other hand demonstrated a belief and stand-point that human rights must be defined by the people’s struggle. For instance, the way communities see the struggle of land is what must inform the codification of claim in terms of the rights language. One classical example was the case of the cost of living and survival tactics in Kibera in Nairobi, as testified by a community member. The community representative illustrated very well the struggle for subsistence and dignity in Kibera. Nonetheless, it was such a shame when one of the so-called human rights NGO scholars attempted to engage her later, purportedly to educate her on which of her rights were being violated. In fact, the middle-class discourse, as was popularly the case at the Human Rights tent, has a potential of limiting the space and drive for community straggles. Amidst the communities in the struggle, expectations have run ahead of opportunities and hope clouded by resentments.

About Leadership and Human Rights

Judging from the various sessions at the WSF, the poor and marginalized communities recognize the reality of globalization. What they want is a freer cross-borders exchange of ideas, knowledge, goods and services; what men and women seek is respect for their dignity and cultural identity; they ask for opportunities to earn decent living; they expect globalization to bring tangible benefits to their daily lives and ensure a better future for their children; they also wish to voice in the governance of the process, including extent and nature of the integration of their economies and communities into the global market and to participate more fairly in its outcomes. This means that the human rights worker and activist must realize that social change that we are all struggling for must be informed by the needs of the poor and vulnerable masses, the way they see them and in the direction that they feel to be appropriate for them at any particular time. The only role that CSOs and human rights workers have here is when the poor and vulnerable choose to draw sustenance for their struggle from universal human ideas, and/or the practical experience of other struggles; but they must start from the full acceptance that this is their own struggle and belief that even when they do invite support from other struggles or partners like CSOs, they shall lead the struggle.

The relevance of human rights, therefore, is as far as it expands the space for community struggles; reinforces the realization of their capabilities or serves to legitimize wider horizons of claims for the communities. Otherwise, the attempts to impose the rights language to communities who are already organized in a more radical discourse can serve to limit the energy and organic nature of such struggles.

* Steve Ouma is the Programmes Coordinator and Deputy Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission. Contact address Valley Arcade, Gitanga Road, P.O. Box 41079, 00100 Nairobi – GPO, Kenya Tel. 254-2-3874998/9, 3876065, 0733-629034, 0722-264497, Fax: 254-2-3874997

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Steve Ouma Akoth discuses the notion of corporate responsibility, introducing two notions of human dignity - individualistic and choice oriented vs. communal and substance oriented - that reflect two different world views. In discussing these views, he argues that the choice is for a thicker or broader notion of the moral self.

Corporate Responsibility or Citizenship has evolved in a time of increased economic and social globalization. As part of this evolution, the debate has moved beyond responsibilities and accountability [1] of the Corporate Citizens [2] to that of respective roles that the non-state actors can play in the governance of global and national societies. In building this understanding, attention has invariably been focused on how the concept and process has evolved from the paternalistic philanthropic [3] focus to the current talk of accountability.

It is apparent from the scholarly materials and information available in this area that most pundits more so those focusing on accountability of business enterprises, have looked at this issue from the perspective of the Western system of knowledge and its confrontation with neo-liberalism. This “singular focus” has thus missed a major thrust and leverage factor from other cultures and jurisdictions which would otherwise significantly influence the clarity of this discourse.

From the various view points [4], one must also note that there has been no significant challenge to the economic system within which the business enterprises which are being called to be more accountable operate. Milton Friedman laid down corporate law in the mid 20th Century when he said that business' only role was to make business, which has been ignored in this debate [5].

Jerry Mander & Edward Goldsmith have taken this debate further by exposing the spirit of Miltons argument by stating that:

“The essence of the capitalism system is the accumulation of capital, the making of profits in order to invest and to make still more profits. The first law of capitalism is; And the best way to accumulate capital is not to work hard but to get others to work hard for you. Private gains, not social needs, are the central rule for the capitalist system.”

As an erstwhile chairman of Castle Cooke put it: “We are in the business of making profit. We are not in business primarily to satisfy society. We are not going to satisfy society very long if we go out of business. So profits are the number one consideration.”[6]

This is why I think that any efforts to promote ethical business practices and encourage respect for and fulfillment of human rights, must question the framework of profit making. The response to this kind of mind set in my opinion can not simply be the business case or the legal frameworks which have been touted as the major contours and impetus for Corporate Accountability. In my opinion this is about what is good and what is bad. It is about ethics and morals.

Although ordinarily the debate on ethics and morals is seen as a fragile and delicate landmine, [7] this is where the Corporate Citizenship discourse can benefit from the African Context. Because at the very minimum, business has a moral obligation to ensure it does not undermine human dignity and progress. To this, African Context through both economic system and value system gives an unwavered response.

The Traditional African Economic System.

The African Economic system was widely anchored in the principles of economic democracy. The basic premise of this notion is to view economics as 'culture'. In other words, importance is given to the study of economic processes in relation to the social and cultural contexts in which they occur To strengthen this understanding Anthropologists [8] have decided to create a distinction between this economic system - which they have called the 'substantivist' economy - and the now dominant neo-liberal economic system which they refer to as the formalist [9] economy.

The 'substantivist' economic system is anchored in the principles of egalitarians. This school of thought is closely associated with Karl Polanyi who is remembered today as the originator of a 'substantivist' approach to economics, which emphasized the way economies are embedded in society and culture. This thinking appreciates the fact that economic systems have three interrelated aspects;

- Patterns of subsistence - the means by which environmental resources are converted for human use
- Systems of distribution - the means by which goods and services are made available to members of a particular group
- Patterns of consumption

Polanyi isolates four institutions as crucial to the economic and political order that had characterized most native economies : a balance of political power, the international gold standard,
a self-regulating market system, and the liberal state. The SRM (Self-Regulating Market) was "the fount and matrix of the system," the "innovation which gave rise to a specific civilization". [10]

Most African societies were organized in a system that Polanyi describes here as the SRM (Self-Regulating Market). Polanyi differentiated between economic systems in which there were markets and the "starkly utopian" SRM of the nineteenth century. Markets are places or networks in which goods are bought and sold; they are human interactions organized by price, quality, and quantity of traded goods and services. The SRM was a society-wide system of markets in which all inputs into the substantive processes of production and distribution were for sale and in which output was distributed solely in exchange for earnings from sales of inputs.

The SRM was a society-wide system of markets in which all inputs into the substantive processes of production and distribution were for sale and in which output was distributed [11] solely in exchange for earnings from sales of inputs. Society is vital to humans as social animals, and the SRM [12] was consistent with a sustainable society. This argument represents the character of most pre-colonial African economies.

There exists substantial evidence that organization of production and distribution in many societies had been accomplished through social relationships of kin or community obligations and counter obligations (reciprocity). The same system of relation with business enterprises can be found in the Agrarian and pastoralist [13] societies. This framework seems to be in great resonance to the modern concept of Corporate Citizenship. It implies that business can not survive unless it is in articulation with the societal values and operates in a conscientious manner to the expectation and aspirations of the society.

African Ethics for Business: Ubuntu

There is a very diverse set of ethical and customary frameworks throughout Africa. However, to illustrate how some of these concepts or terms may be applicable to business ethics and Corporate Citizenship, a deeper focus on the world view of most African societies would be useful.

This is very well represented in the philosophy of ubuntu which is based on the proverb “Umntu Ngumntu Ngabantu,” which can be translated as “a person is a person through other people” or “I am what I am because of you”. The following extract is from a book by Desmond Tutu called No tomorrow without forgiveness and it gives a good impression of ubuntu:

“Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a Western language. It speaks to the very essence of being human. When you want to give high praise to someone we say, 'Yu, u nobuntu', he or she has ubuntu. This means that they are generous, hospitable friendly, caring and compassionate. They share what they have. It also means that my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in theirs. We belong in a bundle of life. We say, 'a person is a person through other people' (in Xhosa Ubuntu Ungamntu ngabanye abantu and in Zulu Umuntu Ngumnutu ngabanye). I am human because I belong, I participate, I share. A person with ubunti is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good; for he or she has proper self-assurance that comes with knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were no less than who they are.” [14]

The term “Ubuntu” emphasizes that we all live and work in community [15]. Hence ubuntu can apply to the inside of a company and we could see company employees and management as a community, where one looks after the interest of others. Ubuntu also applies to a company as part of the broader community, where the company looks after other members of the community so that it can thrive. It is therefore apparent that ubuntu has important implications for corporate citizenship. Linking this with the economic system postulated above, essence of Ubuntu (humanity) cuts across Africa.

It is pertinent to take account of the African world view and culture in the context of governance of companies and the moral power that they imply. This high standards of morality are based on historical precedent. These are bolstered by the close kinship observed through totem or clan names and the extended family system [16]. This notion of co-existence with other people which is highly valued can inform the way we conceptualize and design the responses to Corporate Accountability and Responsibility today.

Two notions of human dignity

The outcome of the above discussion is two very different notions of self dignity: A classical libertarian understanding which (when pushed) reduces human dignity to individual free choice, and a broader, social (egalitarian as illustrated by the African cosmological context) perception of humanity which insists that human dignity involves more than free choice. Precisely what the latter means in any particular society is determined not merely by ideological theory (whether of Kant, John Stuart Mill or Karl Marx) but by values inherent to the historical and social context (with all the political, economic, cultural and religious dimensions) that influence any particular society at a given time. Within this context theories, doctrines and traditions (the theoretical apparatus we bring to a situation) usually need to be reshaped, reconceived and rewritten. As suggested in the introduction, the exercise of thinking through and developing the Social Responsibility standard must thus involve an intellectual and theoretical renewal which responds to the conflicts within the current economic system. The two notions of human dignity - individualistic and choice oriented vs. communal and substance oriented - reflect two different world views.

It is apparent that this African cosmological context presents a major tension that challenges and haunts liberal politics. These are challenges that confront all politic. Its is the tension between how to allow the maximization of individual freedom of choice while at the same time addressing the corporate responsibilities that are part of any social union. If individual [17] liberty is the primary value, then equality may have to be sacrificed. If equality is the primary value, there will be violations of liberty [18]. The quest must thus contribute to resolving this apparent contradiction [19] which resides at the heart of democratic-liberalism. An illustration using the African context affirmations of individual freedom alone constitutes a one-sided view of a fragmented tradition [20]. As such it provides a useful basis on which to address the political issues central to the required reconstruction. The concern is to balance individual and common values, rather than to propose a compromise within which neither is adequately addressed. [21] The goal is the establishment of a social theory and morality, which 'rests on a view of ourselves as co-members of a common world'. It involves a morality within which each individual is necessarily seen as 'one of us', requiring co-existence based on mutual respect and co-operation by a community of individuals who consciously locate themselves within their social context rather than seek (in a Kantain way) to abstract themselves out of it. The quest is for a thicker or broader notion of the moral self. [22]

* The Author is the Programmes Coordinatotor and Deputy Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, Member of the Advisory Board of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and a Student of Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Governance at University of South Africa Contact address Valley Arcade, Gitanga Road, P.O. Box 41079, 00100 Nairobi - GPO, Kenya Tel. 254-2-3874998/9, 38776065, 0733-629034, 0722-264497, Fax: 254-2-3874997E-mail: [email][email protected]

[1] The discourse of accountability implies obligation by the law and a framework that can be used to hold the actor to responsible for their actions.

[2] These are artificial persons created by the law.

[3] The history of involvement of Corporations in societal issues has an origin in welfare and charity work at that time not much linked to the strategic operations.

[4]Here we are only referring to the view points that have been taken on Corporate Accountability and Responsibility

[5]Jerry Mander & Edward Goldsmith, eds., The Case Against the Global Economy and For a Turn Toward the Local (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996); Ed., Kevin Danaher, 50 years is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Boston: South End Press, 1994).

[6] Chairman of Castle and Cooke of Dole Standards Fruits CO., interview in the documentary film Controlling interests, (San Francisco: California Newsreel, 1978).

[7] This is mainly due to relativity of the term.

[8] Classic economic anthropology has been concerned with the logic of exchange systems, with peasant economies, and with livelihood systems. An anthropological approach to economics will enable a critical analysis of some of the cultural biases in the 'universal' principles of mainstream economics, e.g. the concepts of work and leisure, poverty and wealth, gifts and commodities, and money and markets.

[9] This formal neoclassical theory cannot be used to explain economic activities in non-western societies

[10] Polanyi, Karl. 1944, 1957. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press by arrangement with Rinehart & Company, Inc.

[11] One must however note that the strongest and most long lasting criticism of The Great Transformation has been directed at the passages where he argues that reciprocative and redistributive forms of integration have been much more common in human history than self-regulating market systems.

[12] In his further works, Polanyi's argues that the SRM could not survive -- not because of the distributional consequences that play the major role in Marx's explanation of the inevitable collapse of capitalism -- but because the starkly utopian nature of the SRM gave rise to a spontaneous counter movement, even among those enjoying increased material prosperity.

[13] In pastoralist societies for instance the concept of “cattle complex” which implies the deep intrinsic values that are inherent in pastoralism , do explain how social responsibility and sustainable models of economies and social relations inform business.

[14] See the Introduction to Corporate Citizenship, UNISA, Centre for Corporate Citizenship.

[15] This is almost some spirituality of Collectiveness and Humility. This Perpetual optimism is due to strong belief in the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent superior being in the form of the creator of mankind.

[16] As a result, there is an inherent trust and belief in fairness of all human beings. This manifests itself in the predisposition towards universal brotherhood, even shared by African-Americans.

[17] The individual here refer to both natural and legal persons.

[18] Lebacqz, Six Theories of Justice, p 65.

[19] As I have mentioned in other discussions, I doubt if the ISO system has either the capacity or the willingness to confront this challenge. See Steve Ouma Akoth; Comments on the Guidance on Social submitted on 19th April 2006.

[20] Pinkard, Democratic Liberalism, pp. 51; 101f.

[21] Pinkard views Duncan Kennedy's classification of 'individualism' and 'altruism' as two competing theories and a fragmentation of liberalism. This concern is to transcend rather than choose or reduce the two into compromise. Pp. 100f

[22] Pinkard, DemocraticLiberalism, p, 15.